Realtor as Landlord (LTB)

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 15:40, 10 November 2025 by Sharvey (talk | contribs) (→‎Rahal v. 1888508 Ontario LTD, 2025 ONLTB 77829)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved: 2025-11-11
CLNP Page ID: 2532
Page Categories: [Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB)]
Citation: Realtor as Landlord (LTB), CLNP 2532, <https://rvt.link/h0>, retrieved on 2025-11-11
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2025/11/10


Residential Tenancies Act, 2006[1]

2 (1) In this Act,

...
“landlord” includes,
(a) the owner of a rental unit or any other person who permits occupancy of a rental unit, other than a tenant who occupies a rental unit in a residential complex and who permits another person to also occupy the unit or any part of the unit,
(b) the heirs, assigns, personal representatives and successors in title of a person referred to in clause (a), and
(c) a person, other than a tenant occupying a rental unit in a residential complex, who is entitled to possession of the residential complex and who attempts to enforce any of the rights of a landlord under a tenancy agreement or this Act, including the right to collect rent; (“locateur”)


[1]

Rahal v. 1888508 Ontario LTD, 2025 ONLTB 77829[2]

6. The Landlord’s testimony establishes the following:

a. he posted an ad online which the Tenant responded to.
b. the ad identified the Landlord as a seller and the unit is described as a shared unit.
c. he showed the unit to the Tenant on June 30, 2025, and gave him the keys on July 1, 2025.
d. he acquired the keys to the unit from a lockbox after obtaining permission from the property owner on MLS.
e. on July 2, 2025, he spoke with the property owner who rejected the Tenant’s rental application because of alleged falsehoods in the application.
f. his requests for the Tenant to vacate the unit and return the keys were unsuccessful.

...

9. Section 1 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (‘the Act’) provides that the purposes of this Act are to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes.

10. In addition, section 3 (1) of the Act provides that the Act applies with respect to rental units in residential complexes, despite any other Act and despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary.

11. In this case, the Landlord argued that he was not acting as an agent of the property owner but had received the keys to the unit with the permission of the property owner. The property owner on the other hand stated that the Landlord had the keys because he conducted maintenance of the rental unit. Their testimony was also inconsistent as to when the property owner discovered the unit had been rented. I will not allow the inconsistences to circumvent the LTB’s jurisdiction in this matter or deprive the Tenant of the protections afforded by the Act. I am satisfied that the Landlord obtained the keys with the goal of showing the unit to prospective Tenants and renting it out.

12. Section 2 (1) of the Act defines a Landlord to include the owner of a rental unit or any other person who permits occupancy of a rental unit.

13. Given the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the named Landlord on July 1, 2025, entered into an agreement with the Tenant to rent the unit to him. In accordance with the agreement, the Tenant paid to him, $2,500.00 for the first month’s rent and a portion of the last month's rent deposit on July 1, 2025. In exchange, the Tenant received the keys to the unit. Pursuant to section 13 (1) of the Act and the agreement to lease, the term of the tenancy commenced on July 1, 2025.

14. The Landlord, although a real estate agent, acted as the Landlord in this case when he permitted occupancy of the rental unit. Hence, the request to remove him as a party to the application is denied.

15. Due to time constraints, the application was not heard on the merits but was adjourned to a date to be scheduled by the LTB.

16. The parties are directed to give to each other and to the LTB any evidence that relates to the application.


[2]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17>, retrieved 2025-10-20
  2. 2.0 2.1 Rahal v. 1888508 Ontario LTD, 2025 ONLTB 77829, <https://rvt.link/gl>, reterived 2025-11-10